Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

917 Excellent


About kiwi57

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

559 profile views
  1. I'm sorry, what am I full of? I'm only pointing out the facts. Ah! I see. I'm full of facts. Thank you.
  2. The biggest red flag is that the SP said that he had heard that her husband and the alleged other woman were having an affair, and she had to correct him: it was, she said, an emotional affair. Q: Where did the SP get the idea that her ex was having an affair? A: Members of the ward told him that. Q: Where did they get the idea? Did they catch her husband in flagrante delicto? A: No, their information was wrong. Q: Does that mean they got it at second hand? A: Well, they certainly didn't get it first hand! Q: So who was the source for this second hand information? A: Who do you think? Tiercy was clearly gossiping on a large scale about her husband's alleged affair, and she wasn't too careful about being accurate in what she was accusing; any more than she was being selective about who she gossiped to. She was assassinating his character to anyone who would listen, and creating discord and division in the ward. The Stake President had not only the right, but the positive duty to put a stop to it. But could Tiercy see that? No, she was too wrapped up in her own feelings of ill usage. I don't know whether the husband had an "emotional affair" or not. The thing about "emotional affair" is that it's a lot like "mental cruelty," in that it is the sort of accusation that can be trotted out when there's no evidence of anything happening. I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV. But when we see this lady's obsession with her own inner state, her expectation that everyone else should be as obsessed with it as she is, along with her sly deceit and manipulation, and her willingness to use her "feelings" to her own advantage, I don't think we are looking at a very well-adjusted personality here.
  3. Yes, and that reference to the "metoo" stuff fluttered a reddish flag. It could well be interpreted as "Oh, this looks like an opportunity to get some attention and pay-back."
  4. Her ex wouldn't be in a position to know.
  5. What "usual assumption" is that? There are, alas, members of my own ward who don't go to the Temple from one year to the next, but who faithfully show up for their TR recommend interviews on time. From what I've heard, such members are hardly unique to my ward, but seem to be found all over the Church. It is a shame that people tend to so frequently make assumptions about the assumptions they assume others are assuming. Rather like the "I know everyone in that ward is judging me" trope.
  6. No one would know if she hadn't made it public.
  7. No, any assumption that it is not true is based upon the fact that she is surreptitiously recording a confidential meeting. IOW, that she is clearly and unquestionably operating in bad faith.
  8. Was he? I read him as mocking the lady who did the duplicitous recording.
  9. Because those of us who see what is really going on know that the past discrimination wasn't "the same type." The past discrimination in view was based upon characteristics of the person, such as skin colour or religion. In the case of the LGBT-alphabet soup crowd, you are demanding special recognition (if not privileged status) for behaviour. I deeply regret that you appear to be asserting something you have no good-faith basis to believe. I remind you, yet again, that not one of those children ever was, or ever will be, born to a same sex couple. Not. One. There are no "gay families." There are families that may have one or more gay members. I'm so glad it wasn't me taking that tone with you.
  10. Generally, business owners to refuse to provide goods or services to interracial weddings.
  11. Mansplaining is what happens whenever a man has the temerity to disagree with a woman, about any topic, at any time, ever.
  12. Then there is the little fact that every single word the woman says in that recording has to be regarded as being uttered in bad faith. But let's just brush that aside, shall we, because that's what "female entitlement" means. Right?
  13. Heretic! It's swallows. Are you using some non-canonical Python source? An anaconda, perhaps??
  14. I'm sure he has just as many reasons to admit mistakes as you do. And perhaps we wasn't even thinking about the things some might assume when he wrote that apology.
  15. It's not the case that we can't comment at all; it's the case that we can't pass judgment. Which too many are too eager to do.